Himachal Pradesh High Court
Shri Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 1 January, 2019
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 456 of 2018
Date of decision: 1.1.2019
.
Shri Jaspreet Singh. ...Petitioner.
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & others. ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Petitioner: Mr.Atul Sood, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr.R.P. Singh and Mr.Raju Ram Rahi, Deputy
r Advocate General, for respondent No. 1.
Mr.Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for respondents No.
2 and 3.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral)
The instant petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as 'Cr.PC') has been filed by petitioner- accused, on the basis of compromise, arrived at between petitioner-accused and complainant-respondent No. 3, for quashing FIR No. 81 of 2016, dated 30.6.2016, under Sections 336, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Chhota Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., and criminal proceedings initiated in pursuance thereto.
2. Respondent No. 3-complainant, Sh. Geeta Ram was present in the Court on 18.12.2018, on which date his statement was recorded on oath, wherein he deposed that the incident has occurred due to deep digging of land, due to which support of wooden logs provided to the iron stand did not work and the iron stand had fallen, causing injuries to respondent No. 2 Sh. Dharam Singh and after remembering the entire episode, he is of the opinion that contractor/petitioner had made the arrangement to give support to the stand, but because of deep digging of land, support did not work and the iron Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:45 :::HCHP 2 Cr.MMO No. 456 of 2018 stand had fallen and the petitioner was not rash and negligent in any manner and as such he has compromised the matter with the petitioner/accused and does not want to pursue the criminal proceedings against the .
petitioner/accused. Respondent No. 2 Dharam Singh, injured in the said incident was also present in the Court on 18.12.2018 and has endorsed compromise arrived at between petitioner/accused and complainant/respondent No. 3. Complainant/respondent No. 3 as well as respondent No. 2, injured in their statements recorded on oath in this Court, reiterated arriving of the compromise with petitioner-accused with free consent and will, without any coercion and pressure of any kind.
3. It is contended on behalf of respondent No. 1-State that accused is not entitled to invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court to exercise its power on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties with respect to an offence not compoundable under Section 320 Cr.P.C.
4. It is apt to record herein that a three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303, explaining that High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with no statutory limitation including Section 320 Cr.P.C., has held that these powers are to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court and these powers can be exercised to quash criminal proceedings or complaint or FIR in appropriate cases where offender and victim have settled their dispute and for that purpose no definite category of offence can be prescribed. However, it is also observed that Courts must have due regard to nature and gravity of the crime and criminal proceedings in heinous and serious offences or offence like murder, rape and dacoity etc. should not be quashed despite victim or victim family have settled the dispute with offender. Jurisdiction vested in High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is held to be exercisable for quashing ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:45 :::HCHP 3 Cr.MMO No. 456 of 2018 criminal proceedings in cases having overwhelming and predominatingly civil flavour particularly offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil partnership, or such like transactions, or even offences arising out of .
matrimony relating to dowry etc., family disputes or other such disputes where wrong is basically private or personal nature where parties mutually resolve their dispute amicably. It was also held that no category or cases for this purpose could be prescribed and each case has to be dealt with on its own merit but it is also clarified that this power does not extend to crimes against society.
5. The Apex Court in case Narinder Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466, has sum up and laid down principles, by which the High Court would be guided in giving adequate treatment to the settlement between the parties and exercise its power under Section 482 of the Code while accepting the settlement and quashing the proceedings or refusing to accept the settlement with direction to continue with criminal proceedings.
6. No doubt Sections 336 is not compoundable under Section 320 Cr. P.C. However, as explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gian Singh's and Narinder Singh's cases supra, power of High Court under Section 482 Cr.PC is not inhibited by the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. and FIR as well as criminal proceedings can be quashed by exercising inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.PC, it was warranted in given facts and circumstances of the case for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, even in those cases which are not compoundable where parties have settled the matter between themselves.
7. In present case, complainant/respondent No. 3 and victim respondent No. 2 have also appeared in person in this Court and their statements, as discussed in para 2 supra, have also been recorded in this ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:45 :::HCHP 4 Cr.MMO No. 456 of 2018 Court, which do not disclose rash and negligent act on the part of accused, rather reflect that even in case trial is continued, there is no probability of conviction of accused. They have also expressed no objection, in .
compounding the offence, rather they have compromised the matter with petitioner-accused. Further in case the trial is allowed to continue, no fruitful purposes would going to be served.
8. Offences in question, for material on record, do not fall in the category of offences termed to be prohibited, in the pronouncements of Apex Court, to be compounded exercising power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. In view of statements of respondent No. 2-victim and respondent No. 3/complainant, recorded on oath in this Court, probability of conviction of petitioner/accused is too remote.
9. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and considering facts and evidence of the case in its entirety, present petition is allowed and matter is permitted to be compounded. Consequently, FIR No. 81 of 2016, dated 30.6.2016, registered under Sections 336, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station, Chhota Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. is quashed. Consequent to quashing of FIR, criminal proceedings in case No. 60-2 of 2016, pending in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Court No. (IV), Shimla, also stands quashed.
10. Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), st 1 January, 2019 Judge.
(KRS) ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2019 23:01:45 :::HCHP